mgo.licio.us

"The face of the operation is Briatore (referred to exclusively in the film by his colleagues and angry, chanting detractors as "Flavio"), an anthropomorphic radish who spends most of his time at QPR plotting to fire all of the managers."

At press time, Harbaugh had sent Michigan’s athletic department an envelope containing a heavily annotated seating chart, a list of the 63,000 seat views he had found unsatisfactory, and a glowing 70-page report on section 25, row 12, seat 9, which he claimed is “exactly what the great sport of football is all about.”

why is it that after years of proving that just drafting somebody by their measurables doesn't work.....and that there are some players who just know how to play....that NFL teams continue to draft players by their measurables and IGNORE actual game tape.

no way that Molk is a 7th round pick!

Congrats to the Chargers for their STEAL!

"...when the ole' season is over, you and I know, it's going to be Michigan again; Michigan!"

2) Look at it from an NFL teams perspective, if you watch Molk on film he struggles against larger DL, his style is condusive to a spread offense that is non-exsistent in the NFL, and to put it bluntly can't really drive block.

"Mr. Brandon you have already taken the fans limbs, what could they possibly sacrifce to pay with now?" asked an associate. Dave Brandon replied calmly, "Simple, we will just take their spirits next."

There are some exceptions, some guys have unimpressive film but get drafted much higher because of measurables. The latest example is Dontari Poe, a guy who was not all that dominant on film but was fast and strong in combine workouts. There are also guys with good film that slide to later rounds or go undrafted because of poor 40-times or other workouts. Travis Lewis, recent Lions draft pick, was pretty good on film but ran a 4.88 at LB. He ended up being drafted in the seventh too. I'd say that size and combine measurables are about 30% of what scouts look at.

Russell Wilson looked like a pretty good QB on film but his height sent him to the forth or fifth round. On the other hand, Michael Floyd goes late-first or early-second if he doesn't run a 4.47 at the combine. Molk could have gone on Day Two if he were 6-3, I think.

Are there years of proof that drafting based on measurables doesn't work? Or are those failures just the most publicized anecdotes?

Obviously you can come up with a million examples of a guy without great measurables who was drafted late and is successful, but that's sort of like arguing recruiting rankings don't matter because look at all the 2-3 stars who become all-conference. The total numbers of 5th round-undrafted picks are so different from, say, the number of first rounders, that it's basically useless information.

And there are tons of guys who were great in college, who didn't have "NFL-measurables," were drafted late/undrafted, and failed in the NFL or never made it all. Which "proves" the opposite.

The man is confident, talented and motivated. He beat out some good players at Michigan for that spot. His backup (off the top of my head) Rocko Koury (excuse spelling) was listed as 6' 5" who I expected big things from but was rarely used in game situations. Which begs me to say that Molk was also durable.